Talk:Reciprocal Public License

Be worthwhile to add a list of projects/companies that use this license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.156.182 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Severely lacking in sources

This version of the article from September 5 was entirely unsourced. A few sources were since added along with a bit more content, but the unsourced content remained in the article largely untouched, and very few of the claims in it were ever sourced. Can we fix this? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

“Usage” section

Re this revert, I had removed the “Usage” section, which consisted of two unsourced claims made without context and which seemed like non-noteworthy trivia. I am unaware of any independent RSes that would even have reason to comment on the license used by Active Agenda or NServiceBus, but if anyone can find any, then great, let’s discuss the relevance of the claims. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Usage and usage exampels haev along tradtiion in WP and are notable. Trivial, non-controversial, non-personal facts like "usage exampels" don't need strong sources. In this case one of the examples was even backed with a WP article. This removal is excessive. Shaddim (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If they are notable, they should be readily sourceable. If they are trivial, we probably don’t need them fluffing out the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

More to the specific point: who cares what license these obscure pieces of software use? How is it relevant? Third-party sources are a good measure of relevance: if there aren’t any, it likely isn’t. On the other hand, if there were a ton of developer blogs saying how great or how awful it was that they can/can’t use X thing because it’s under Y license, or a ton of software projects (or few widely recognized projects) using it under that license, it’s pretty clearly relevant and we’d be remiss not to mention it. I’d wager this leans more toward the “who cares” side. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I answered you already multiple times: examples are the most natural thing to do for an encyclopedia. Also WP has an tradition of doing it. Examples serve here twofold: someone uses this licenes ("reception & impact") and give the reader the change to see the license in implmennted action. In this case, even with an WP page. I have problems to understand how you don't see a benefit in it. (Yes, I consider it excessive from you that you now request sources which shows that these are notable exmaples... notability applies ONLY to the article itself)Shaddim (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I requested sources simply because they’re the clearest evidence of the fact’s significance, because it kinda feels like we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Are there really no higher-profile examples? Does no major or well-known project use this license or anything licensed with it? If these are the best examples we can offer, we might as well be saying the license is little-used and relatively unknown. And replacing the examples with that statement would be an improvement. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

this again is a formulation of "I want notability of subaspect" which is forbidden. Also, what is your point with "Are there really no higher-profile examples?" Is the first example not high profile enough? They have even a WP page. "we might as well be saying the license is little-used and relatively unknown." This is a statement I would have added indeed, but refrained as you would have reverted immediatly with your common phrase. Shaddim (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

To me, it would be better for us to say nothing, if we can’t say anything verifiable except for a backhanded compliment. And no, it is in no way “forbidden” to expect information to be substantiated as more than unimportant trivia —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Impact, usage , examples are not trivia but core functionality of an encyclopedia. Nothign more to say hereShaddim (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And I’m asking how these examples show impact. Because it seems more like a lack of one. Sometimes, examples are just cruft. Not in general, but sometimes, such as in this particular case, they’re just useless trivia. If we could get some less obscure examples, and properly sourced ones at that, that would be another story. But if we can’t, consider removing these as cruft. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"trivia. If we could get some less obscure examples" Please, show how example 1 is obscure, as I think the the opposite is true: while not required, example 1 has even a WP page is also notable according WP standards, the opposite of "obscure". How is example 1 obscure? Shaddim (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t say Active Agenda wasn’t notable enough for an article (though that may well be the case: the article only cites a single independent source with significant coverage. But that’s irrelevant here). I’m saying it’s not notable enough nor licensed enough (i.e., no one has done anything with its RPL-licensed code) to be suitable for inclusion as an example in a tangentially related article. And if I’m not mistaken, you’re asking me to prove the nonexistence of something, to prove a lack of notability, which isn’t really provable. If you could prove my claims wrong with anything more than a WP article that simply hasn’t been WP:AFDed yet, that would settle it. But can I take it you agree that at least NServiceBus doesn’t belong? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As an example of… well, examples, let’s take Flatpak. The article lists support for LibreOffice and Pitivi, with citations. LibreOffice is a huge FOSS competitor to the juggernaut of Microsoft Office. I’ve never heard of Pitivi myself, but it has a perfectly respectable WP article, and I have no doubt that it’s as widely known in the Linux community as Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, or Sony Vegas. So it’s 'significant that these had both adopted support for Flatpak. Does RPL have anything comparable? I’d much rather replace these crummy examples with good ones than simply remove them. Is there anything to replace them with? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"But can I take it you agree that at least NServiceBus doesn’t belong?" absolutely not as I don't agree to your excessive, non-WP backed standards for including "exmaples". Examples are among the most natural thing to do therefor this belongs. I would agree and comply if you would say: "i have better examples, lets exchange this" -> fine. Removal without substitute, for your gut feeling -> nope. Shaddim (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"LibreOffice is a huge FOSS competitor to the juggernaut of Microsoft Office. " See, I could agree that there are examples which are more notable than others, but I will not agree toi your personla threshold interpretatino when some exmaples is notable enough to be included. Show policies or I will not comply to your interpretation. Shaddim (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as you may have noticed, that examples can be helpful. But as you say, some examples are more noteworthy/important/relevant than others—not as a “gut feeling,” but as a matter of common sense. These two are examples of WP:HTRIVIA#Connective trivia, of the kind that is of minimal or no importance to this subject. Contrast this with what that page says about the city of Newport News; in the same way that a celebrity may be a claim to fame for his or her hometown, a major, highly visible software project may be a claim to fame for the license it uses. Such is not the case here, or else there’s no evidence of it. And of course, there’s still the lack of sourcing, and the baffling insistence against policy on WP:CIRCULARly using our own articles as a source (and the shortsightedness of assuming that Wikipedia articles would not be available in other formats or in isolation). But my main concern here is the triviality, the lack of significance. Yes, they may be valid uses of the license, but these particular uses of the license are not of consequence. If you disagree, please explain the significance beyond the mere fact of existence. Or if you disagree with this whole concept, we could take it to WP:DRN or something to get an uninvolved editor’s opinion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

the significance is: someone uses it. Not only the license writing author. This is the first step of success, recognition by someone else. To bring this in context for the reader, I would still write: "The license found only limited use and acceptance with only a handful of examples of usage like XXX and YYY." But I guess you would delete that as OR. Shaddim (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Without a source claiming “limited use” or “a handful,” I would probably contest that, yes; there just isn’t enough coverage of this license’s reception. But I would still consider it an improvement over what we have now. The question is, how is it significant that this particular someone uses it, beyond the fact that they exist and they’re using it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

yes, from the perspective of the license (and its article, and the reader who want to know about the relevance and impact) it is significant that someone uses it. From your perspective, expecting some form of "article like notability" for the usage of this license, no. But luckily, second form is not required at all. Shaddim (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

" yes; there just isn’t enough coverage of this license’s reception. " which is an fact observation which could be written down, but ok, I will not stress you with this (which I would consider another case of WP:THESKYISBLUE (Meta: I don't understand how you guys manages it to remember and find the WP: something polciy stuff, I never find it again, nor do I rmeber the correct abbrevation)). Shaddim (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, we are not allowed to make our own determinations of how well something was received or how widely it was used, as that would be original research and an error-prone judgment call of editorializing. But I don’t think I’ve seen a policy/guideline saying so, and I’d frankly be happy to be wrong about this, because it would nicely solve our dispute here, just throw a light analysis on it and call it a day. Shall we ask about it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

we are allowed to make decisions in consensus as long they are not in conflict with some significant policies. the decision if some example can be added is such a harmless detail or the fact "there are not many users of this license" which is verifiable...just do a (re)search. Shaddim (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the fact "there are not many users of this license" would be considered WP:original research, in which case no, we are not allowed to make that claim. If you think I'm mistaken on this, we should seek a third opinion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If you feel the need to escalete for every detail, while we have freedom to decide in consensus, i can't stop you. Shaddim (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you think seeking consensus is an objectionable “escalation.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

you believe this can't ve decided in consenus of the editting authors but by escalating it to next resolving level. This is objectively escalation for minor details, where we have freedom for to decide ourselves. Shaddim (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You did not accept my decision, and you have not persuaded me. How else would we proceed? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What about you add the refernces yourself? they are there outside. I believe the content is backed as it is. You don't think so, and you think better are avilable or shoudl be searched. Just do it if you believe it should be done, but don't apply your expectations on your fellow editors! I will accept: you add references to them. I will accept you find better examples and removal of these. I will accept more text explaining the impact and context for the reader. I will not accept removing giving context to the reader ("examples") when it is inside our mission. So, which way do you want to go? Shaddim (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any sources that have analyzed the usage of RPL. If you are, that would be a huge benefit here.

Or if you mean the two uses we mention… are you refusing to source them yourself, despite insisting we keep them? To what end? Not just to prove a POINT, I hope.

Anyway, I still don’t see how mentioning these two projects adds any value to the article, any more than if we made up a name; it doesn’t mean anything to the reader. Can you explain why they matter? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine here (due to being a non-controverisl, non perosnal & trivial fact) and I indeed refused to do it myself as I find laughable trivial and expected you to do it since weeks instead of throwing this tantrum at the discussion page. Existing exmaples MEAN something to readers (as I explained already three times? jsut reread what I wrote before). But I agree we could expand the meaning for the reader easily with some addtional prose, which you block. So it is up to you finding a constructive solution.Shaddim (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not block anything that was well-researched and clearly relevant. You have no one to blame for failures in either aspect. Please stop being so inappropriately antagonistic. Unless your desire is literally to make Wikipedia worse, we are all on the same side.

Saying the opposite of something is not the same thing as refuting it. I say obscure examples do not mean anything to the reader because their obscurity lends them no more weight than made-up examples. Do you disagree that each of these examples is obscure? Or do you disagree that obscure examples are unhelpful? Justify your answer. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

yes, I totally disagree. Examples of all kind ARE helpful for the reader for several reasons & have clearly more weight than "made-up" examples. Second, your assertion "obscure" is your personal gut feeling therefore little weight & objectively wrong as the first example passed the WP notability threshold. Shaddim (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You can’t say it “passed” WP:N unless it had an attempted deletion on those grounds that failed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It exists for some time and is not an orphaned article...so several editors passed that article without immediately feeling the need initiating a deletion process. So it seems the articles serves its purpose, good enough. Shaddim (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m surprised it hasn’t been nominated yet. It doesn’t cite, at least, any independent sources that include significant coverage. Anyway, that has little to do with whether it’s noteworthy here, so I’m confused why you’ve been bringing it up; there’s no discussion about the license it uses in that article or sources, and it’s far from being ubiquitous (I mean, if the license were used by software such as VLC or OpenOffice, that would unquestionably be of interest here). I hope my argument is making sense to you. Is it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No it does not as again notability is leaking in here in your argumentation. That the license was chosen by real-world commercial projects is an notable fact. You demand now that this usage has to excessive important to be mentioned. This is not what is "reception" is about. A proper reception would be a also "there are no known users of this license." or "the license has not acheiveed wide spread, seldom examples are 1 , 2" etc etc There are many more ways presenting and demonstrating reception and usage beside the narrow approach "was is used by ridicoulus important entities?" Shaddim (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Shaddim

With this revert two real world examples of the article's described concept were removed. Given reason was "Usage: removing unsourced section". first, "no sources" is not suitable reason. Verifiability was explicitely fullfilled with example 1, as it had its WP article linked (where a source and further information is). For second example sources are easily findable. So, no formal hard reasons for removal. Second, I think examples have a good and long WP tradition and exist in many articles. Examples serve here two-fold: real word usage of this license, serving the "reception & impact" chapter, and to give the reader the chance to see the license in implemented action and context. In this case, even with a own WP page. So, there are good reasons to keep them and little reason to remove them. Asking for alternative or better examples or reformulation does not resulted in constructive contributions or proposals but insisting on formalistic positions instead of focussing what might benefit the reader. Shaddim (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Two primary/official sources for the license usage: https://particular.net/sourcecode https://github.com/Particular/NServiceBus/blob/develop/LICENSE.md . About relevance, while I think not required, a quick googleing revealed a book https://books.google.de/books?id=0PlzBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=NServiceBus+review&source=bl&ots=0WNOnsdIpb&sig=x2KeOACNAw1VzbEzn8H7IwBJqyI&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaot3g7ZfRAhUPMlAKHQS6CGg4ChDoAQhOMAc#v=onepage&q=NServiceBus%20review&f=false and the US department of veteran affairs (as users?) http://www.va.gov/trm/ToolPage.asp?tid=6984. Shaddim (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Viewpoint by 67.14.236.50 (talk)

In keeping with the request for a short sentence: I don’t think anyone exercises this license to any significant degree with the two products mentioned in § Reception, and no sources discuss what license these products use or its ramifications, so their inclusion is needless trivia. (Well, not a short one, but I tried.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I’d just like to point out that the sources provided for “relevance” don’t even mention this license. “Reciprocal” and “RPL” don’t appear once in the book source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

this was against your attack on the examples as being non-relevant/not notable/trivia. 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If anything, you showed its lack of relevance here. Please see my latest reply above this subsection. Maybe an illustration would help: a source that shows relevance to the subject might say something like, We wanted to use NServiceBus in the new World of Warcraft expansion, but we would have had to relicense the whole game under RPL. So we had to delay its release for another year while investigating other options. This would show that it matters that this software used the RPL, that the use of this license had some effect, that it’s relevant to the subject of this article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is quite clear that a license, being chosen by projects, makes a license more relevant than a license which is not chosen. This is exactly what examples for usage are about. You demand now more trivia or context, why it was chosen. While this might be interesting, this does not change or limit the more important fact that it was chosen. Again, you are welcome to extend! Shaddim (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion by MarshalN20

@Shaddim and 67.14.236.50: Please respond to this third opinion assistance request. I have attempted to read over the situation but do not fully understand the dispute. Not responding to this request may result in the decline of the third opinion, unless another editor offers to provide a third opinion instead. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Thank you for the response. I'd like to wait for the IP user before providing an opinion. However, in the meantime, I would highly recommend if you could please take a moment of your time to provide and cite the contested material with the source(s) that you indicate "are easily findable". This could help resolve the situation and avoid further confrontations. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Shaddim, while certainly not every addition one makes to Wikipedia requires a citation, it does help to willingly provide sources when material becomes contested. Remember that Wikipedia operates under verifiability, not truth. If we refuse to provide evidence when prompted, it becomes difficult to resolve discussions with fellow Wikipedians. That said, thank you for providing the sources. Let's wait now for the IP user to respond.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: The IP user makes a good point. The word "relevance" might be confusing the discussion here. Perhaps a better word is "relationship". So, we need to verify the relationship between NServiceBus and RPL. Might you have a source for that? Unless a source can be found for it, then only Active Agenda should be mentioned in the article, but not NServiceBus. And that's my final statement on this. Thanks again for requesting a third opinion! Have a great rest of the year!--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, I quite don't understand: the relationship is there as both projects chose the license. The fact that they chose is verified with the given sources for both ("Your license to the NServiceBus source and/or binaries is governed by the Reciprocal Public License 1.5"). What more is to demonstrate here? (here they discuss it) Shaddim (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Great! I hope that this all has helped clarify the importance of providing sources. To cite it in the article, you can use the ref tags. Cheers.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see, I will add the sources. To make it crystal clear: when sourced, this both examples are considered beneficial for the article by you? thank you Shaddim (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a standard policy to not click on links, but I assume good faith. If the sources provided indeed demonstrate a relationship, then I do not see any reason as to why they could not be included. That is, unless there is any serious violation of a Wikipedia policy (for example, WP:COI). Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you, this should settle the case. best regards. Shaddim (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: Sorry, I must have been unclear. My contention here isn’t the verifiability of the fact that these two projects are licensed under the RPL (though that is of course important); it’s the relevance of the fact beyond its mere existence. I’m asking whether the relationship between Active Agenda and the RPL is more substantial than the relationship between two people who never interacted after being introduced but held onto each other’s business cards, because if not, the example seems useless for its purpose here. But @Shaddim, that podcast about NServiceBus is a great find, and I hope we incorporate some of the talk around the license there. I haven’t listened to it, but from the show notes, it looks like it would be a perfect primary source for adding some depth to our mention here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Settled at User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 15#3O misunderstanding. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)